Search This Blog

Posts

Many on
the left often advocate the rejection of Christian sexual ethics with the
argument that lifelong monogamy is unnatural. And by unnatural they mean not
merely among human beings, but among animals. In their worldview, of course,
man is simply an animal—a highly evolved animal, to be sure, but an animal
nonetheless. And how better to gain an understanding of ourselves than to study
what is “natural” in the animal world? David Barash, author of The Myth of Monogamy, tells us:“There has been quite a revolution in
scientific understanding of the lives of animals and we can learn a lot about
ourselves by looking at other creatures.”[1]
Presumably, Barash would take exception to Pope’s famous line, “The proper
study of Mankind is Man.” Perhaps he would wish to rewrite it to something
like, “The proper study of Mankind is Manimal.” Meghan
Laslocky, author of The Little Book of
Heartbreak: Love Gone Wrong Through the
Ages, opined for CNN, “The bottom line is that flings are far from fo…

We have seen much
in the news recently about attempts by those who call themselves the Islamic
State (IS) to establish a new Caliphate—a sovereign state governing the entire
Muslim world under Islamic law (Sharia), derived from the Quran and the Sunnah
(the example of Muhammad). Here is an
example of the “wisdom” of Quranic jurisprudence: As for the thief,
both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds,
an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise (5:38). Pardon me for not
thinking this very wise. We might call it jurisprudence without the prudence. A
thief, presumably, is unwilling to
work for his own support. After the imposition of Sharia, he is rendered unable to work, at least not at full
capacity. How, exactly, is this any better for him or for society? And lest
you are tempted to think that this is an archaic penalty no longer applied, you
might want to view this video, but not if you have a weak stomach. Contrast this
with Biblical law…

JESTER NEWS— In a move
that was widely expected among court-watchers, the Ninth District Court of
Appeals ruled yesterday that reading the Founding Fathers in public schools and
appealing to them in legal arguments is unconstitutional. “We have been watching this court for
sometime now,” said Gary Shyster, a lawyer with the ACLU, who filed a brief in
the case. “We knew that it was only a
matter of time.” Christa
Phobe, executive director of Hysterical Americans United for the Removal of all
Traces of a Christian Past, was elated with the court’s decision. “We knew we had a strong case since the court
had previously ruled against the posting of the Declaration of Independence in
government buildings because of its appeal to ‘the Creator.’ If the Declaration had to go, we knew the
rest of the Founding Fathers’ writings couldn’t be far behind.” The
case originated when Ima Bigot of Berkely, California objected to an assignment
her son was given in his high school government class. He was…